Loading...
08-02-2007 1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 AUGUST 2, 2007 4 5 Following are minutes from the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held 6 on Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church St., 7 Las Cruces, New Mexico. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph De La Rosa (proxy for Frank Guzman — NMDOT) 10 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 11 Loretta Reyes (CLC Public Works) 12 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 13 Mike Bartholomew (RoadRUNNER Transit) 14 Jon Czerniak (Dona Ana County) 15 Henry K. Corneles (DAC Engineering) 16 Tim Sanders (BLM) 17 Terry Coker (Las Cruces Public Schools) 18 Jean Hinsley (proxy for Henry Magallenez— EBID) 19 20 MEMBERS ABSENT: Henry Magallenez (EBID) 21 Debbie Lujan (Town of Mesilla) 22 Robert Armijo (DAC Engineering) 23 Frank Guzman (NMDOT) 24 Orlando V. Fierro (DAC Flood Commission) 25 26 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 27 Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) 28 Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) 29 Vincent Banegas (CLC — Development Services) 30 Dianne Wax (CLC — Recording Secretary) 31 32 PUBLIC: John Hamilton 33 34 1. CALL TO ORDER 35 36 Meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. 37 38 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 39 40 2.1 June 7, 2007 41 42 Mike Bartholomew requested a grammatical change on Page 3, Line 35. It should read 43 "The set of recommendations consists of.........................." 44 Terry Coker motioned to approve the minutes of June 7, 2007, as corrected. 45 John Knopp seconded the motion. 46 ALL IN FAVOR. 1 1 2.2 June 28, 2007 2 3 Mike Bartholomew requested a grammatical change on Page 2, Line 31. It should read 4 "The set of recommendations consists of........................" Page 5, Line 14, RFT 5 should be FTA. 6 John Knopp motioned to approve the minutes of June 28, 2007, as corrected. 7 Dan Soriano seconded the motion. 8 ALL IN FAVOR. 9 10 3. ACTION ITEMS 11 12 3.1 Transportation Plan amendments for SAFETEA-LU compliance 13 14 The Las Cruces MPO adopted its 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) on July 15 13, 2005. The U.S. Congress adopted and the President signed the Safe, Accountable, 16 Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) on 17 August 10, 2005. Recent FHWA guidance on the new transportation bill requires that 18 the MPO update its LRTP to bring into conformance with SAFETEA-LU. 19 20 The public comment period was opened at the TAC meeting held on May 3, 2007. At 21 that time, staff received comments from TAC members and DOT staff. MPO staff met 22 with Ray Matthew and Joseph de la Rosa, from NMDOT, to further review, refine, and 23 expand the proposed amendments. The amendments presented today reflect the 24 comments to date. 25 26 Because the proposed amendments affect so many portions of the LRTP, they will be 27 incorporated as an appendix. Most of the changes affect the Intermodal Element since 28 this is the only element in the LRTP that is specifically set up to handle issues that affect 29 all transportation modes. MPO staff expects that the development of the 2010-2030 30 LRTP will take a more comprehensive look at all of the issues affecting transportation 31 and frame the Plan around these rather than focusing on individual modes. Also, 32 updates of the Transportation Improvement Program Application and Public 33 Involvement Plan, as outlined in the Unified Planning Work Program, will continue to 34 focus on important issues identified in SAFETEA-LU. 35 36 The purpose of this agenda item is to allow further opportunity for public input and 37 receive TAC input and recommendation to the MPO Policy Committee. 38 39 Andy Hume gave a brief presentation. Andy suggested adding the proposed 40 amendments to the Transportation Plan as an appendix. He also talked about the four 41 C's. 42 43 Joseph De La Rosa recommended putting definitions into the document and identifying 44 the four C's; and explain how the MPO has taken the definitions and address it 45 accordingly. 2 1 Andy stated that a brief paragraph could be added on Page 19 of the proposed 2 appendix. 3 4 Mike Bartholomew expressed the Committee's appreciation for all the hard work that 5 Andy has put into the document. 6 7 Joseph De La Rosa stated that the MPO staff did a great job and had addressed a 8 challenging piece of legislation. He stated the document looks great and is looking 9 forward to the document being approved by the TAC and the Policy Committee; and 10 sent onto the FHWA, who will ultimately make the call to find the Las Cruces MPO 11 SAFETEA-LU complaint. 12 13 John Czerniak motioned to recommend approval with the proposed amendment to the 14 MPO Policy Committee. 15 Terry Coker seconded the motion. 16 ALL IN FAVOR. 17 18 3.2 Public Involvement Plan amendments for SAFETEA-LU compliance 19 20 The Las Cruces MPO adopted its Public Involvement Plan (PIP) on March 13, 2002. 21 The U.S. Congress adopted and the President signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 22 Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) on August 10, 23 2005. Recent FHWA guidance on the new transportation bill requires that the MPO 24 update its PIP to bring into conformance with SAFETEA-LU. 25 26 The amendments proposed in the attached draft document improvements in the way 27 MPO staff carries out public involvement. Also, it points out changes in processes 28 under certain outreach efforts such as the Master Mailing List and the MPO website. 29 The proposed amendments also clean up old addresses, organization names, and other 30 house-cleaning issues. 31 32 The 45 day public comment period opened on June 28, 2007. Comments to date have 33 been received from NMDOT and RoadRUNNER Transit. NMDOT noted that 34 SAFETEA-LU identifies a Public Participation Plan and the LCMPO is amending the 35 document to reflect that. RoadRUNNER identified the need to include a section on 36 persons with Limited English Proficiency in the Environmental Justice portion of the 37 document. The comment period closes August 13, 2007. 38 39 Staff is requesting a conditional recommendation to the Policy Committee for a special 40 August 22 meeting under the condition that no other comments are submitted. 41 42 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 43 44 Mike Bartholomew stated he had a few editorial comments. 3 1 • Page 5, first paragraph under Environmental Justice, where the section was 2 added, improve access to services for persons with limited English proficiency 3 engage them.............. It should be 'by engaging' rather than the word 'engage'. 4 . Page 6, there are several places where reference is made to a September 2002 5 date, and in other areas the date has been stricken. Recommendation: either 6 the whole sentence be removed or just refer to the fact that the Plan would be 7 updated every five years and leave the date out. 8 9 Tom Murphy stated that the best thing to do was to state that the tasks were completed 10 in September 2002 and are scheduled to be updated every five years. 11 12 Mike Bartholomew stated that would work but change 'will be' to 'was'. 13 14 Mike also asked about the statement of translating the Plan into other languages other 15 than English. Just for the record, that will be any language? Is that correct? 16 17 Tom Murphy stated that they would make the effort to find the resources for the 18 translation. 19 20 Mike Bartholomew asked, for the record, regarding churches as locations for public 21 meetings. 22 23 Tom Murphy stated that from his experience not every church has the same policy as 24 public buildings, as far as allowing the public access, so it limits the availability; and 25 secondly and a more important a factor is that by holding the public meeting in a 26 religious building it may preclude or it may discourage some members from participating 27 for their own personal reasons they may not be comfortable entering the building. 28 29 Mike Bartholomew also mentioned, as a result of the Tri-Annual Review that was held 30 this week, that on Page 6, Transit Projects, that the advertisements for public 31 participation be very specific so that it meets the requirements for public meetings for 32 the Federal Transit Administration Projects. 33 34 Tom Murphy stated they would be changing the actual lines of the agendas that are 35 published when the TIP amendments are specific to Transit, NMDOT, or City project. 36 37 Joseph De La Rosa requested a minor change on Page 5, NMDOT District One Office, 38 insert the word Project between District One and Office, and designate as the Las 39 Cruces Office. So it should either read District One Las Cruces Project Office or just 40 Project Office. On Page 11, under Public Meetings, box labeled Public Participation 41 Program (PIP), change PIP to PPP. 42 43 Tom Murphy suggested naming the District One Office, the District One Las Cruces 44 Project Office and he will make that change. The PIP will be changed to PPP. 45 46 4 I Tim Sanders motioned to recommend approval to the MPO Policy Committee unless 2 substantial public comments are received, in which case the Public Involvement Plan 3 will be brought back to the MPO Technical Advisory Committee. 4 Terry Coker seconded the motion. 5 ALL IN FAVOR. 6 7 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS 8 9 4.1 Hondo Road Discussion 10 11 A letter was submitted by Paul Lindsey as public comment to the Policy Committee. Mr. 12 Lindsey has requested that the TAC review his request and discuss the technical merits 13 of a proposed downgrade. 14 15 Tom Murphy stated that they presented the letter to the Policy Committee last month 16 and the Policy Committee asked that it be brought before the TAC for discussion to 17 decide whether the request has merit and whether or not to proceed with the proposed 18 downgrade. 19 20 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 21 22 Tim Sanders stated that it is currently disposal property and there is nothing at this time 23 going forward for BLM to dispose of it at this point. 24 25 Tom stated that there is already a significant subdivision of land and staff does not 26 anticipate that the land could be subdivided much further bearing out Mr. Lindsey's 27 argument that Hondo Road may be suitable for declassification or downgrading. 28 29 Tom stated staff is seeking the Committee's input on this matter. 30 31 Joseph De La Rosa asked for clarification regarding the letter from Mr. Lindsey. The 32 letter talks about a request for re-designation, but Joseph thinks that staff is using the 33 words re-designation and re-classification interchangeably and he is not sure that the 34 discussion is about the same thing. He had two questions: 1) the 2005 Long Range 35 Thoroughfare Plan identifies Hondo Road as a proposed collector, which to Joseph 36 means it is proposed to become a collector at some point in the future, which means its 37 current classification is probably not a collector and in reviewing it he feels that its 38 Federal functional classification is probably not currently a collector. So what is actually 39 be discussed is changing the future designation at some point. Is that correct? 40 41 Tom stated that staff is not asking for any action. He stated that its functional 42 classification would be a local street. The major Thoroughfare Plan is essentially the 43 future major street plan for the MPO area and what that directs staff to do is to go about 44 acquiring the right-of-way when subdivisions occur, and essentially by changing the 45 math to take it off, staff would cease any activities to attempt to acquire the right-of-way 46 for the County. 5 1 Joseph stated then staff is not actually discussing the Federal functional classification 2 requesting a change to that, which is a formal process that the State of New Mexico 3 undertakes every 10 years to basically define the limited amount of Federal functionally 4 classified roads but rather, for planning purposes or designation of Hondo Road at 5 some point as requesting a functional classification change. Is that right? 6 7 Tom stated that that is essentially correct. Currently it is identified as a future collector 8 with the idea that 20 years down the road as the urban develops that that would be one 9 of the needs. Mr. Lindsey makes the case that due to existing conditions on the ground 10 both there and upstream from traffic is that the designation would not be needed. So 11 staff would need to look at it, particularly from the Committee's perspective, is would this 12 be an instance where staff would waive Policy 1.5 on Thoroughfare Spacing and would 13 it make sense to not have that thoroughfare spacing so exact or in this area. 14 15 Tim Sanders stated that his understanding is that this proposed collector status might 16 take 10 to 20 years to happen and in order to make the decision whether to keep it a 17 proposed collector staff would have to look at development 10 to 20 from now, not 18 today's development. 19 20 Tom stated that is correct and staff has not had an opportunity to conduct the analysis 21 since the recent receipt of Mr. Lindsey's letter. As staff proceeds forward they would 22 bring back to the Committee an analysis and a recommendation. 23 24 Terry Coker requested that if staff goes forward with the analysis that staff informs the 25 Committee who else on the road has given right-of-way and what the status is. Terry 26 asked the question, are we serving this for one person or is this something that property 27 owners along that street benefit from. 28 29 Tom stated that Mr. Lindsey did comply with current standards and is looking to maybe 30 get some back and to prevent some of his neighbors from having to go down the same 31 road he did at this juncture. 32 33 Dan Soriano stated that MPO staff and the Committee needed to really consider the 34 future needs. He stated it makes sense to keep the piece of Hondo Road there just 35 from the stand point of the roadway network. It needs to be looked at not as an isolated 36 case but other cases in the same area could have the very same argument for 37 petitioning to remove or reclassify those segments from the Thoroughfare Plan, but from 38 the Committees perspective they need to consider future needs, future networks, and 39 how things are laid out. The grid pattern needs to be preserved as much as possible. 40 41 Tom stated that maybe what should be done is to review what the cross-sections for a 42 collector would be and then keep the grid, but then there is flexibility as we reach the 43 outlying more rural areas and that we not put a five lane road in. 44 45 Joseph De La Rosa stated that it comes back to compliance and actual statutory 46 authority and that they should comply with these plans and have Mr. Lindsey surrender 6 I the right-of-way or plan for the right-of-way. He stated that he knows that it is requested 2 and part of the future transportation network and it's important that they try to comply 3 with that, but he doesn't know of anything that gives the MPO, regardless of whatever a 4 proposed classification of a roadway is, the authority to actually require that they set 5 aside that right-of-way. 6 7 Tom Murphy stated that the City, ETZ and County Subdivision Codes require dedication 8 of right-of-way per the Regional Transportation Planning Authority. In Dona Ana County 9 there is the EI Paso MPO and the Las Cruces MPO which are required to conform right- 10 of-way dedication to our plans, within the City and the ETZ those Subdivision Codes 11 require dedication of right-of-way per the MPO Plan so the statutory language is there to 12 compel. 13 14 Mike Bartholomew asked if staff was going to bring back more information per Terry 15 Coker's request. 16 17 Tom Murphy stated that staff would be bringing this matter back to Committee. At this 18 juncture, staff was seeking input from the Committee before bringing it back as an 19 action item. 20 21 4.2 Pedestrian Element 22 23 The Las Cruces MPO integrated a policy in the 2005 Transportation Plan to expand the 24 Pedestrian Element. This draft of the Pedestrian Element is that expansion and will 25 amend the current Pedestrian Element in the Transportation Plan. The Pedestrian 26 Element is organized to expand upon current policies, as well as take a more in depth 27 look at prioritizing improvement of pedestrian facilities. Public involvement has occurred 28 via the plan being available on the internet, by way of feedback from the BPAC and 29 TAB, and through extensive Pedestrian Surveys. The attached draft Pedestrian 30 Element expands on general pedestrian guidelines and concepts, as well as specific 31 goals, objectives and policies. Also, it utilizes the framework of our newly amended 32 Mission Statement in its organization. 33 34 Caeri Thomas gave a brief presentation. 35 36 Henry Corneles asked if there was data on crimes against pedestrians and suggested 37 that pedestrian safety should be taken into consideration. 38 39 Terry Coker was interested in the general publics feeling on whether it is safe to go 40 walking. 41 42 Dan Soriano asked about safety in the Veteran's Park area. He was concerned about 43 pedestrian safety during the night time hours. 44 45 7 I Andy Hume stated that staff would do some more analysis of crime data in reference to 2 the questions raised about safety and security issues. 3 4 4.3 Roadway Design Standards 5 6 A common theme that has emerged in discussions, including study corridors, is 7 complete streets — roadway design standards that provide transportation options for all 8 users. MPO staff has been working with various planners, engineers, developers, fire 9 officials, and members of the public to create cross sections that will address the needs 10 of all transportation networks users. These options are based on several sources of 11 information: 12 13 Current County and City design standards 14 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials policies and 15 guidelines for roadway and bicycle and pedestrian facility development 16 Roadway cross sections from many counties and municipalities from around the 17 U.S.; and 18 A review of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and policies in many other countries 19 20 A draft of options that staff is recommending be taken to local jurisdictions for adoption 21 can be reviewed on the MPO's website. 22 23 Andy Hume gave a brief presentation. Andy stated that all the presentations can be put 24 on the MPO website for the Committee and others to review. 25 26 Henry Corneles asked if there was any consideration given on phasing sections based 27 on either development or traffic. 28 29 Andy stated in most instances staff tries to look at the traffic impact analysis to look at 30 when a roadway needs to be made bigger. 31 32 Roundabouts were discussed. 33 34 Andy stated that this will be brought back to TAC probably in September for a 35 recommendation from the Committee. The BPAC has already recommended to the 36 Policy Committee. Staff will be looking for the Policy Committee to recommend that the 37 local entities adopt these roadway design standards. Staff will be looking to add them 38 to the MPO Transportation Plan as a set of best practices for roadway designs. 39 40 4.4 Development Review 41 42 Development Review process information was included in Committee members packets 43 for their review. 44 45 5. PUBLIC COMMENT - None 46 8 1 6. ADJOURNMENT 2 3 Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 4 5 6 Crerson 9